On 26 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> We might also set cross_compiling=maybe if --host is specified but
> --build isn't, and then use the original cross_compiling test to
> decide.
But the old cross compile test did not work on systems where
rld did not know how to find a lib the compiler linked to. This
made it think it was cross compiling when in fact it was not.
That, combined with problems with macros that do not work for
a cross compile (like the big endian test) leads to very
confused users and bug reports that we just don't need.
> > Could there at least be some sort of AC_DONT_USE_HOST_KLUDGE
> > macro that I could put into a new configure.in so that new
> > programs do not need to be burdened by this crufty old stuff?
>
> I wouldn't vote against such a macro :-)
I don't like the old way because it is a huge mess, but
if there were a way to avoid the mess in new scripts I
guess I could live with that.
How about another option? Why don't we just skip a
2.5 release and call it 3.0? A new "major" version
would be the perfect place to put in a fix for
a long-standing bug like this. Lets face it,
autotools releases only happen every year or
two. If we don't make this --host change now,
both automake and libtool will keep using the
old way for many years to come.
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
